Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ghost of miles

Does it matter whether we own music?

39 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, JSngry said:

Oh, I've got gajilliboogle bytes of it, I know it's fun.

:D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JSngry said:

At some point, though, stuff will be discarded, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Not everything that gets lost is a "forgotten gem". Some of it is just not particularly worthy of keeping becuase it's not really good. All those blogs that were around a few years ago, they would have all these old records that everybody had forgotten about and I'd download them and then listen and a LOT of times my response would be, well hell, no wonder nobody remembers this, it's nothing to remember.

That may be YOUR stance but as you no doubt know tastes and preferences differ widely so others may think alike in fields of music that YOU may prefer or even cherish. And even if a certain tune is all bad (and in most cases it isn't really "bad") it may be so bad that it's really cool again (musical Ed Wood, etc.). Besides, there is enough out there that has been overlooked unfairly by reissuers so those blogs do and did serve a purpose (I know of one I regret has disappeared forever, though OTOH its downloads were seriously troublesome at times so I've steered clear of these, but the discographical info alone going into previously uncharted territory - we are not talking about jazz or bues - was great and gave you lead on who to check out elsewhere). So, as for "nothing to remember", it is in the ear of the behearer, and I'd really make a case for all those journeyman artists out there who managed to get their music on wax for osterity, and there ARE hidden gems out there and they all contribute to putting the flesh on the bones of history as written by the big names and to rounding out the picture of what happened (and still hapens) in music. A case of exploring one's preferred styles in search of new discoveries and therefore documenting and becoming a guardian of the FULL spectrum of music again.

Besides, judging what is "great" according to what one is "supposed" to find great according to "common wisdom" and leave it at that is an increasingly doubtful approach IMO, and I'd even go out on a limb saying that I'd understand anybody who finds Ayler's or Brötzmann's "screeching" less memorable than, say, a contemporary minor soul act if he happened to be all into soul and may be inclined to discard THAT kind of "screeching" recordings - REGARDLESS of what the "experts" claim one is supposed to embrace in music from that period. Just like I know what kind of jump blues or bebop I'd prefer over other styles in the wider fields of jazz, for example (yes, including a lot of  free jazz "but that's only me"), regardless - again -  of what "common wisdom" may dictate. There is enough out there for everybody's tastes and this will allow everything to be enjoyed and preserved by somebody somewhere. If you go only for the obvious names the limited range of what would be preserved and enjoyed would make the musical world (i.e. world of jazz, in this case) a much, much poorer and more limited one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 10:28 PM, Milestones said:

I just got around to watching the whole video.  Interesting stuff on Netflix, as well as some many other things.  Good final line: "If we are just going to borrow music, music itself may be on borrowed time." 

22 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Unfortunately it is behind a paywall so for now I cannot comment further but the title of it all sums it up IMO: "Spotify has no soul".

I just watched the video and generally agree with him. The companies he mentions have no interest in music preservation because they are driven by short term profits, especially if they are publicly traded companies; if they don't meet expectations, the market reacts and people lose their jobs, etc.  This is not only the music business, of course. 

As in earlier times, it's up to collectors to preserve what they can and do their part to make sure music put out by smaller companies that exist for a short period of time are preserved.  

Perhaps some day the trend will be reversed. After all, who thought vinyl would make a comeback after the dawn of the cd age? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the music I listen to is physical media - CD’s purchased and stored on my shelves. Besides my ongoing purchases of new archival Grateful Dead Livereleases (I’ve also purchased 95% of the affordable portion of the huge amount of officially released live music that I’m interested in over the past 3-4 years) all of the jazz/free jazz/freely improvised music I buy is on independent labels such as Not Two, No Business, Erstwhile, Relative Pitch, Aerophonic, etc. 

I am more than happy to pay a fair amount for these releases to support their commitment to these great current musicians. Plus I STILL get excited about opening a package with an exquisitely produced CD or mini box such as the 8 CD Joelle Leandre set I’ll be receiving from Not Two records for the Holidays. There is something about the physical product that commits me to the music in a deeper way. 

Edited by Steve Reynolds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

That may be YOUR stance but as you no doubt know tastes and preferences differ widely so others may think alike in fields of music that YOU may prefer or even cherish. And even if a certain tune is all bad (and in most cases it isn't really "bad") it may be so bad that it's really cool again (musical Ed Wood, etc.). Besides, there is enough out there that has been overlooked unfairly by reissuers so those blogs do and did serve a purpose (I know of one I regret has disappeared forever, though OTOH its downloads were seriously troublesome at times so I've steered clear of these, but the discographical info alone going into previously uncharted territory - we are not talking about jazz or bues - was great and gave you lead on who to check out elsewhere). So, as for "nothing to remember", it is in the ear of the behearer, and I'd really make a case for all those journeyman artists out there who managed to get their music on wax for osterity, and there ARE hidden gems out there and they all contribute to putting the flesh on the bones of history as written by the big names and to rounding out the picture of what happened (and still hapens) in music. A case of exploring one's preferred styles in search of new discoveries and therefore documenting and becoming a guardian of the FULL spectrum of music again.

Besides, judging what is "great" according to what one is "supposed" to find great according to "common wisdom" and leave it at that is an increasingly doubtful approach IMO, and I'd even go out on a limb saying that I'd understand anybody who finds Ayler's or Brötzmann's "screeching" less memorable than, say, a contemporary minor soul act if he happened to be all into soul and may be inclined to discard THAT kind of "screeching" recordings - REGARDLESS of what the "experts" claim one is supposed to embrace in music from that period. Just like I know what kind of jump blues or bebop I'd prefer over other styles in the wider fields of jazz, for example (yes, including a lot of  free jazz "but that's only me"), regardless - again -  of what "common wisdom" may dictate. There is enough out there for everybody's tastes and this will allow everything to be enjoyed and preserved by somebody somewhere. If you go only for the obvious names the limited range of what would be preserved and enjoyed would make the musical world (i.e. world of jazz, in this case) a much, much poorer and more limited one.

Yeah yeah yeah, but nevertheless, crap is crap, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to what objective criteria across the entire range of music that is out there?

One person's entertaining, unpretentious directness may be another person's crap (because not lofty enough).

One man's enlightened, spiritual greatness may be another man's crap too (because just dissonant noise).

One man's jazz may be another (techno? alt whatever?) man's crap (because sooooo old hat)

And so on ...

Anything can be called crap it is outside someone's musical tastes by a sufficiently wide margin.

It's all subjective as a function of one's own taste. Somebody else out there will appreciate sincerely what you (or me or whoever) do not like at all. Fine, go ahead ...

A huge lot of what doesn't meet our tastes is not really that "bad", just not top drawer and run of the mill stuff to US that WE can do without. And even if it is "bad", hey (to use one of your fave interjections :D), even Hasil Adkins has his followers in HIS segment of music or for HIS purpose of making "music".;) So some may bemoan if his music disappeared from those online services but might not give a hoot about Brötzmann  being available or not. So what? Nobody is expected to like someone else's preferences. Different strokes ... No FINAL judgment possible in any direction. Like it or not, it's all relative. And if somebody out there would like to preserve even this niche stuf then why not? As long as they don't force it indiscriminately on everybody else as "mandatory listening".

And isn't this what a lot of this discussion is all about? A lot of niche music outside majority tastes at the risk of falling by the wayside in the download/streaming etc. world?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steve Reynolds said:

There is something about the physical product that commits me to the music in a deeper way. 

Same.

Listeners build relationships with objects — vinyl in particular, but (yes) also compact discs. I've never caught myself thinking: "I'm going to dig in deep with my FLAC files this weekend" or "I'm going to pour myself a drink and get out my streamed music tonight."

I think streaming is great. I don't do it yet, but I understand its efficiency and dispensing with ownership. The sharity blogs of the mid-2000's were great! I never would have heard some Jackie Mittoo 45's otherwise. (And some of those 45's have yet to see the digital domain.) Also, I forget which blog it was, but there was an incredible Blue Note upload once: Hank Mobley's BN 1568 in stereo. It actually revealed that this album was well-recorded. (Most compact disc issues of this album have sounded fairly horrible in my opinion.) The uploader's vinyl rip was meticulously curated. Now those were some mp3's I could build a relationship with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

According to what objective criteria across the entire range of music that is out there?

One person's entertaining, unpretentious directness may be another person's crap (because not lofty enough).

One man's enlightened, spiritual greatness may be another man's crap too (because just dissonant noise).

One man's jazz may be another (techno? alt whatever?) man's crap (because sooooo old hat)

And so on ...

Anything can be called crap it is outside someone's musical tastes by a sufficiently wide margin.

It's all subjective as a function of one's own taste. Somebody else out there will appreciate sincerely what you (or me or whoever) do not like at all. Fine, go ahead ...

A huge lot of what doesn't meet our tastes is not really that "bad", just not top drawer and run of the mill stuff to US that WE can do without. And even if it is "bad", hey (to use one of your fave interjections :D), even Hasil Adkins has his followers in HIS segment of music or for HIS purpose of making "music".;) So some may bemoan if his music disappeared from those online services but might not give a hoot about Brötzmann  being available or not. So what? Nobody is expected to like someone else's preferences. Different strokes ... No FINAL judgment possible in any direction. Like it or not, it's all relative. And if somebody out there would like to preserve even this niche stuf then why not? As long as they don't force it indiscriminately on everybody else as "mandatory listening".

And isn't this what a lot of this discussion is all about? A lot of niche music outside majority tastes at the risk of falling by the wayside in the download/streaming etc. world?

 

 

 

I’m not interested in pre-1950’s jazz but I would never call it “crap” because it is outside of my musical taste. Just because West Coast cool jazz of the 50’s is well outside of my musical taste, you’ll never see me referring that well respected music as “crap” (Well respected and loved by those who listen to it - just as Brotzmann’s music is well respected and loved by those who listen to it)

For you to continue to ignorantly refer to the music that Peter Brotzmann has dedicated his life to for over 50 years as “crap” is offensive in the extreme. 

Just because you hear the little of it you might have sampled as “screeching” doesn’t mean it is crap because you hear “screeching”.

If you have no interest in modern free/avant-garde jazz, please do us a favor and refrain from your ignorant uninformed rantings on the subject. You don’t see me commenting on 1940’s or 50’s dance music.

Edited by Steve Reynolds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against crap, there's some of it that I'm very fond of, actually. But it is crap.

In fact, I can't really take anybody seriously who doesn't realize crap when they hear it. One of the most depressing things is for people to defend crap as not-crap. To me, that's the sign of a sucker, a dupe, or, on occasion, a downright idiot.

Which again, has nothing to do with liking it or not. But it has everything to do with having a broad enough perspective on both music and life to know crap when you find it, People who get defensive about liking crap are jsut not mature humans, Crap is part of what sustains a market and defines a culture. Crap is inevitable, simply because most people are not genius, hell, most people are not gifted. Most people are, in fact, quite mediocre on their best days.

To accept crap is to accept humanity as it is, unconditional love, if you will. But if you don't know what it is you're loving, that's not really love, is it?

If Mosaic did a Complete Hollyridge Strings set, I would buy two - one for me, and then one for my dentist's office. I'm tired of 70s rock, and have been since the 70s.

But it needs to be cheap, because, god, it is most certifiably crap. Quite possibly genius crap, because those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

Don't fear the crapper. Shake hands, but don't kiss, that's all you gotta know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the saying goes, one person’s junk is another person’s treasure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video is interesting.  I actually had an argument with Gioia on facebook on this subject about a year ago.  I don't really find his argument very compelling.  Yes, I also prefer owning music as a physical product, but that is only because I was brought up to enjoy hunting for and "acquiring" music in this way.  

If you think about it, the only really meaningful way that we can define "ownership" of music for listening purposes is the ability to access it any time a person wants.  Tapes, records, CDs, 8tracks, MP3s, cassettes are just a medium for providing this access.  They are not the music itself.   Streaming is also a convenient medium.   In fact, the advent of digital music has expanded opportunities for ownership.  We no longer have to be home sitting in front of a record player with a record collection for this access.   Spotify provides more immediate ownership of more music than record collectors could acquire in several lifetimes. 

Yes, we can deeply regret that technical progress at this stage has caused musicians and the music industry to lose a lot of money.  But what is the solution?  Technical progress is technical progress.  We can't really stop it.   The search for new ways to defend copyright on music goes on, but the solutions will have to be consistent with continuing to move forward with technology.

The argument about preserving music also strikes me as odd.  On the contrary, we are at the age where almost everything is preserved.  There is a lot of space in the clouds.  

 

Edited by John L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, John L said:

There is a lot of space in the clouds. 

Indeed there is, but...just sayin'...

"su vida es en este nube, aqui es la realidad"

"your life is in that cloud, here is the reality" HA!

I proudly own this record, but to think that I could ever own this music..if it was ownable, it wouldn't have made it this far!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It feels like a party political broadcast (or whatever the equivalent is in the States) on behalf of "people like me" [Ted Gioia]. There's something very narrow about his vision, as though he's wearing blinkers. It's dressed up with a potted history of the economics of the music business - but what struck me was how he'd left out the people who'd bought Beatles singles etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That cat has one of the worst presentations ever. I had to bail about seven minutes in. 

That said, I agree with Simon’s take. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.